So I will say it in layman's terms so that even you can understand it: The setting up of a diocese does not make a metropolia beyond it.

We could go over this pursuant to canon 1 of Constantionople, and Apostolic Canon 35 as interpreted by St. Nektarios in the Pedalion etc. but to cut to the chase: in 1905 the Russian Archbishop of the Aleutians and North America had his cathedra in New York (where his predecessors had been pastoring and exercising jurisdiction (officially recognized/required by the State of New York since the 1870s) since the 1860s, with suffragans on both coasts and in between (his jurisdiction recognized by the Dominion of Canada in 1903 over the Orthodox parishes-at the time the only Orthodox parishes in Canada) visiting the parishes throughout the USA and Canada beyond the cathedrals of Sitka, San Francisco and Brooklyn and the cathedral parishes forming in Chicago, Boston and Winnipeg. As the local Church per Canon 8 of Ephesus, it consecrated its bishop of Brooklyn-the first consecration of an Orthodox bishop in the New World, and uncanonical under Canon 8 of Ephesus if the Russian Archdiocse of the Aleutians and North America was not the Local Church per the Orthodox canons.

But since the Russian Archdiocese, as indicated above, was the Local Church having jurisdiction over the continent years (plural) before the Phanar even advanced its THEORETICAL jurisdiction in its Tomos of 1908, over a decade before a bishop authorized by that uncanonical Tomos set foot on the continent, and nearly two decades before any jurisdiction was organized and chartered on the uncanonical basis of that Tomos, and decades still before that jurisdiction so formed on that uncanonical basis was able to consolidate: that consecration in March 1904 New York by the Russian bishops of North America (the primate then still in San Francisco as the New York Cathedral was being built) was uncontestably in correct Orthodox canonical form and authority.

I now feel like the calculus teacher who took on an algebra class in favor to a friend and has to deal with an incorrigible student.

Incorrible student-is that a confession, Father?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

So I will say it in layman's terms so that even you can understand it: The setting up of a diocese does not make a metropolia beyond it.

We could go over this pursuant to canon 1 of Constantionople, and Apostolic Canon 35 as interpreted by St. Nektarios in the Pedalion etc. but to cut to the chase: in 1905 the Russian Archbishop of the Aleutians and North America had his cathedra in New York (where his predecessors had been pastoring and exercising jurisdiction (officially recognized/required by the State of New York since the 1870s) since the 1860s, with suffragans on both coasts and in between (his jurisdiction recognized by the Dominion of Canada in 1903 over the Orthodox parishes-at the time the only Orthodox parishes in Canada) visiting the parishes throughout the USA and Canada beyond the cathedrals of Sitka, San Francisco and Brooklyn and the cathedral parishes forming in Chicago, Boston and Winnipeg. As the local Church per Canon 8 of Ephesus, it consecrated its bishop of Brooklyn-the first consecration of an Orthodox bishop in the New World, and uncanonical under Canon 8 of Ephesus if the Russian Archdiocse of the Aleutians and North America was not the Local Church per the Orthodox canons.

But since the Russian Archdiocese, as indicated above, was the Local Church having jurisdiction over the continent years (plural) before the Phanar even advanced its THEORETICAL jurisdiction in its Tomos of 1908, over a decade before a bishop authorized by that uncanonical Tomos set foot on the continent, and nearly two decades before any jurisdiction was organized and chartered on the uncanonical basis of that Tomos, and decades still before that jurisdiction so formed on that uncanonical basis was able to consolidate: that consecration in March 1904 New York by the Russian bishops of North America (the primate then still in San Francisco as the New York Cathedral was being built) was uncontestably in correct Orthodox canonical form and authority.

"You seemed unaware of that fact" Lol. You are hilarious Isa. The Mediterraneans, of course, use metropolis for a diocese and eparchia for a cluster of them. The Slavs are the reverse, using "eparchy" for a diocese and "metropolia" for a cluster of them (province). The term "eparchia" (province) is the canonical term for a cluster of episkopi. In any case, you did not know this, and I called you out on it, and now you try to cover your tracks with THIS! Hilarious!

LOL. I called you on your fixation on Alaska, as if the Russian Church froze somewhere in 1840 in Sitka. Even then you would be wrong, as it even then had its flock in California, and the Ludwell family out East.

But since you insist, I shall have to cite the relevant canons, starting with these on the theme of the local Church, at issue here, and following up with others in order of their appearance in the Pedalion (I could cite instead the Kormchaya Kniga, but since only the Phanar and its Slavic sycophants and fellow Phyletists dispute the canonicity of the OCA's Tomos of Autocephaly, citing the Phanar's cited authority gets to the heart of the matter. Besides, St. Nekodemas the Hagiorite compiled it as the sum of canon law at the time of the OCA's founding as the exclusive Orthoodox canonical jurisdiction in North America, and was adopted by the Phanar as its standard rule just before February 29/March 13 Sunday of the Veneration of the Holy Cross 1904-a date, we shall see, that disposes of the controversy of the exclusive Orthodox canonical status of the OCA in North America)Apostolic Canon 34

Quote

It behoves the Bishops of every nation to know the one among them who is the premier or chief, and to recognise him as their head, and to refrain from doing anything superfluous without his advice and approval: but, instead, each of them should do only whatever is necessitated by his own parish and by the territories under him. But let not even such a one do anything without the advice and consent and approval of all. For thus will there be concord, and God will be glorified through the Lord in Holy Spirit, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.(cc. VI, VII of the 1st; cc. II, III of the 2nd; c. VIII of the 3rd; o. XXVIII of the 4th; cc. XXXVI, XXXIX of the 6th; c. IX of Antioch.).Interpretation.Just as, when the head is unwell and fails to function properly, the other members of the body also are ill disposed or even utterly useless, so and in like manner it may be said that if the one acting as head in the Church does not honor her fitly, all the rest of the body of the Church will be out of order and unable to function. It is for this reason that the present Canon ordains that all bishops of every province ought to know who is the chief among them, i.e., the metropolitan; and ought to regard him as their head, and not to do anything unnecessary without consulting him, as respecting, that is to say, anything that does not pertain to the parishes of their bishoprics, but, extending beyond these limits, have to do with the common condition of the whole province, as, for instance, do questions concerning the dogmas, matters involving adjustments and corrections of common mistakes, the installation and ordination of prelates [i.e. consecration of bishops], and other similar things. Instead, they are to meet with the metropolitan and confer with him in regard to such common matters, and decide in common on what appears to them the best thing to be done. Each of the bishops should do by himself, without consulting his metropolitan, only those things that are confined to the limits and boundaries of his bishopric and to the territories that are subject thereto. But just as bishops should do nothing of common interest without consulting the metropolitan, so and in like manner a metropolitan ought not to do anything of such common interest alone and by himself without consulting all his bishops. For in this way there will be concord and love, both between bishops and metropolitans and between clergymen and laymen. The outcome of this concord and love will be that God the Father will be glorified through His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who acquainted men with the name of His Father and laid down the law requiring love, when He said: "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one for another" (John 13:35). And He will be glorified in His Holy Spirit, which through Its grace has united us in one spiritual association. That is the same as saying that as a result of this concord the Holy Trinity — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit — will be glorified, in accordance with the voice of the Gospel which says: "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and may glorify your Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 5:16).Concord.Almost identically the same things are seen to be ordained also in c. IX of Antioch. That is why c. VI of the First Ecumenical Council commands that the ancient customs are to hold; those, that is to say, which had been prevalent in accordance with this Ap. c.; so that the patriarch of Alexandria had control of affairs in Egypt and Libya and Pentapolis, since such was also the custom in connection with the patriarch of Rome too. Likewise the patriarch of Antioch had control of his own provinces; and, in general, the same privileges were preserved to every Church and Metropolis, so that every metropolitan should have control over the provinces subject to him. Canon VII of the same Council ordains that the patriarch of Aelia, i.e., of Jerusalem, is to have the observance of the ancient honor and the dignity of his own Metropolis, Canon III of the 2nd commands that the patriarch of Constantinople is to have the highest honor. Canon VIII of the 3rd, too, demands that the rights belonging to each province be free from constraint and impurity again even as in the beginning, according to the old custom, and especially as respects those of Cyprus. In addition, c. XXXIX of the 6th confirms the same c. VIII of the 3rd.

Apostolic Canon 35

Quote

A Bishop shall not dare to confer ordinations outside of his own boundaries, in cities and, territories not subject to him. If he be proved to have done so against the wishes of those having possession of those cities or territories, let him be deposed, as well as those whom he ordained.(c. II of the 2nd; c. VIII of the 3rd; c. XX of the 6th; cc. XIII, XXII of Antioch; cc. Ill, XI, XII of’the Sardican.).Interpretation.This Canon too was ordained for the concord and good order of bishops and metropolitans. It says in effect that a bishop ought not to dare to confer ordinations outside of the boundaries of his bishopric, or to perform any other ecclesiastical function in those cities and countries that are not within his own territory (but neither has a metropolitan the liberty to go into the parishes of his bishops and perform ordinations or any other prelatical ceremony). Only then has he the liberty to perform such functions, when he has been invited by the bishop of the region in question. If, nevertheless, it transpire that he did this without the consent and permission of the bishops who control those cities and territories, let him be deposed who ordained men beyond his boundaries, together with those whom he ordained. For in such a case it would appear that there were two bishops in one and the same place, or two metropolitans, which is unlawful and prohibited by c. VIII of the 1st, and by c. XII of the 4th.Hence, in its c. XX the Sixth Ecum. C. ordains that whoever goes to a strange bishopric and publicly teaches on his own account and of his own accord, without the local bishop’s permission, shall lose his position in the prelacy and shall be allowed to perform only the functions of a presbyter. Perhaps for no other purpose was this provision made than that of preventing the occurrence of this absurd anomaly, to wit, that of having two bishops at the same time in the same bishopric, one wanting this and the other that, which he dared to do. For if that was not the purpose that this council had in mind, why should it degrade the bishop to the rank of a presbyter, at a time when this degradation amounts to sacrilege, according to c. XXIX of the 4th? Besides, if a bishop teaching beyond his boundaries is unworthy, he ought to be unworthy also of the presbytery; but if he is worthy of the presbytery, why should he not be worthy also of the episcopate? So it is apparent that the reason why it reduces him to the rank of a presbyter is to leave one bishop again in one bishopric, and not two. For he sinned immediately against the episcopal office by causing two bishops to be in the same bishopric, on which account he is deposed therefrom; he did not sin, however, against the office of presbyter, since two or more presbyters are not prohibited from being in the same bishopric, wherefore neither is he deposed therefrom (although Zonaras and Balsamon say that anyone that teaches publicly contrary to the will of the local bishop is on this account reduced to the rank of presbyter, in order to humble him, on the ground that he became vainglorious and exalted himself). Hence sacred Photius (Title IX, ch. 11), to do away with the apparent contradiction of the canons — that is, of c. XXIX of the 4th and c. XX of the 6th -, proposed c. VIII of the 1st. Nevertheless, even when it comes to performing the office of a presbyter, a bishop from beyond the boundaries must obtain the permission and consent of the local bishop. If he does not have such permission, he cannot exercise the function; he simply has the standing of a laymen in that case as long as he remains in that foreign region, according to the canons. In order to sum up the entirety of the present Apostolical Canon, we may say thus: A bishop who performs a prelatical service in a strange bishopric, with the consent of the bishop thereof, is not performing it with the power and operation of his own episcopate (for in that case there would be two bishops in one bishopric as though possessing two distinct and separate powers and faculties); but, on the contrary, solely with the episcopal power and faculty of the local bishop (for in this case the two bishops are regarded as one bishop). And if this be so, as indeed it is, anyone that performs a prelatical function against the will of the local bishop, is deposed even from his own episcopal power, which, without possessing it, on the score of his being beyond his boundaries, he exercised; as well as from the strange episcopal power of the local bishop, which he might have possessed with the consent and permission of the latter, but which he stole and appropriated as his own.Concord.The same things are ordained also by c. II of the 2nd, wherein the latter prohibits anyone (whether a patriarch or a metropolitan) from meddling in other dioceses beyond his boundaries in order to perform ordinations or to execute other ecclesiastical accomodations. But still more is that true of c. VIII of the 3rd, which ordains that the bishop of Antioch shall not have authority to carry out ordinations in Cyprus, beyond the boundaries of that diocese, which, it says, is contrary to the Apostolical Canons, meaning the present one. Both c. XIII and c. XXIV of Antioch agree in ordaining that no bishop shall dare to meddle in a foreign province and perform any ordinations therein, except only in case he goes there provided with letters of the bishop inviting him; if he do so under contrary circumstances, the ordinations and all other services he may perform shall remain void and invalid. If, however, it so happen that one bishop has lands, say, and substantial property in the province of another bishop, c. XII of the Sardican allows him to go there in order to gather produce, and for three weeks’ duration to attend church in the church that is in the vicinity of his property, but not to go any closer to the city in which the bishop is. That a bishop may not even teach in territory beyond his own boundaries without the consent of the local bishop is stated in c. XX of the 6th above and in c. XI of the Sardican. Canon III of the Sardican, in fact, not only prohibits this, but does not even allow a bishop to go to the province of another bishop without being invited.

First Ecumenical Council of Nicea I canon 6

Quote

Let the ancient customs prevail which were in vogue in Egypt and Libya and Pentapolis, to allow the bishop of Alexandria to have authority over all these parts, since this is also the treatment usually accorded to the bishop of Rome. Likewise with reference to Antioch, and in other provinces, let the seniority be preserved to the Churches. In general it is obvious that in the case in which anyone has been made a bishop without the Metropolitan’s approval, the great Council has prescribed that such a person must not be a Bishop. If, however, to the common vote of all, though reasonable and in accordance with an ecclesiastical Canon, two or three men object on account of a private quarrel, let the vote of the majority prevail.(Ap. c. XXXIV; cc. II of the 2nd; c. VIII of the 3rd; c. XXVIII of the 4th; c. XXXVI of the 6th; c. XIX of Laodicea; c. XIII of Carthage.)Interpretation.The present Canon ordains that the old customs of the three Patriarchs are to be kept in vogue, chiefly and mainly as regarding the Patriarch of Alexandria, and secondly as regarding the Patriarch of Antioch, and the Patriarch of Rome, succinctly and comprehensively. (Concerning the Patriarch of Jerusalem the present Council devote special and separate treatment in its c. VII; and concerning the Patriarch of Constantinople the Second Council set forth its views in its c. III). So that the Patriarch (whom it calls a Bishop here, owing to the fact that it had not yet become customary to designate one by calling him the Patriarch) of Alexandria came to have authority over all the bishops and metropolitans in Egypt and Libya and Pentapolis. In fact, the same custom also came to prevail with regard to the Patriarch of Rome in that he was allowed to have authority and presidency over all the occidental bishops and metropolitans. Likewise the Patriarch of Antioch is given authority over the bishops and metropolitans of Syria, of Middle Syria, of each of the two regions called Cilicia, of Mesopotamia, and of all the other dioceses subject to his jurisdiction. The present Canon, in fact, commands that not only the privileges of these Patriarchs are to be preserved, but even the privileges of other provinces and churches that are subject to the metropolitans. What is said of the Patriarchs in existence is also true of the independent Patriarchs, then and now — that is to say, the autocephalous Patriarchs, such as those of Asia, of Pontus, of Thrace, of Cyprus, of Africa, and of other countries. (Though others say that the Canon names here also other provinces, embraced, concisely speaking, in the dioceses subordinate to the other two Patriarchs, of Constantinople and of Jerusalem; and that of metropolitans it names only patriarchs. But the first interpretation is better; see also Dositheus, in the Dodecabiblus, pp. 117, 123.) Thus the effect of this Canon is that nothing relating to the administration of church affairs can be done without their consent and approval or sanction. Now, inasmuch as the greatest and chiefest of all ecclesiastical affairs is ordination, the Canon accordingly adds that if anyone is made a bishop without the approval of his own metropolitan, as this great Council has decreed, he is not to be a bishop, because in spite of the fact that the multitude of bishops voted for the bishop, the ratification of the election had to be made by the Metropolitan, and whoever was approved by the Metropolitan had to be made a bishop (and see the footnote to the present Council’s c. IV). Yet if all the bishops in common elect a candidate to an episcopate in accordance with ecclesiastical Canons, but two or three object to his election, not for a good reason and justly, but cavilously and spitefully, the vote of the majority shall decide the matter. Canon XIX of Antioch decrees the same thing. Canon XIII of Carthage says that if any one of those who took part in the voting and signed should afterwards oppose his own confession and signature, he shall deprive himself of the honor of (being) a bishop. Read also the Interpretation of Ap. c. XXXIV.

Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople I canon 2

Quote

Bishops must not leave their own diocese and go over to churches beyond its boundaries; but, on the contrary, in accordance with the Canons, let the Bishop of Alexandria administer the affairs of Egypt only, let the Bishops of the East govern the Eastern Church only, the priorities granted to the church of the Antiochians in the Nicene Canons being kept inviolate, and let the Bishops of the Asian diocese (or administrative domain) administer only the affairs of the Asian church, and let those of the Pontic diocese look after the affairs of the diocese of Pontus only, and let those of the Thracian diocese manage the affairs of the Thracian diocese only. Let Bishops not go beyond their own province to carry out an ordination or any other ecclesiastical services unless (officially) summoned thither. When the Canon prescribed in regard to dioceses (or administrative provinces) is duly kept, it is evident that the synod of each province will confine itself to the affairs of that particular province, in accordance with the regulations decreed in Nicaea. But the churches of God that are situated in territories belonging to barbarian nations must be administered in accordance with the customary practice of the Fathers.(Ap. cc. XXXIV, XXXV; cc. VI, VII of the 1st; c. VIII of the 3rd; c. XXVIII of the 4th; cc. XX, XXX, XXXIX of the 6th; c. IX of Antioch; cc. III, XI, and XII of Sardica.)Interpretation.Since, as is attested by Socrates (Book 5, ch. 8 ), officiation beyond the boundaries of one’s own diocese was formerly a matter of indifference on account of persecutions, and, as Theodoret says, blessed Eusebius of Samosata did it as a matter of extraordinary zeal. On this account, when peace reappeared in the Church as a whole, the present Canon was adopted and promulgated. It relates neither to autocephalous Metropolitans alone, as Balsamon interpreted it, nor to Patriarchs alone, but to both these classes of dignitaries alike, according to Dositheus (p. 233 of "Those who have served as Patriarchs"), in order that each of them may serve his own province and diocese, and not interfere in one that is alien, and not confound the rights of the churches; but, on the contrary, in accordance with the Canons (cc. VI and VII, that is to say of the First, and much more in accordance with Ap. cc. XXXIV and XXXV), that the bishop of Alexandria may manage only the parishes in Egypt (the Council expressly mentioned the bishop of Alexandria because the Bishop of Alexandria with his party cooperated to have Maximus the Cynic ordained in Constantinople, while, on the other hand, great St. Gregory was ousted from office in spite of its being his diocese and parish). The metropolitans of the East are to attend to the affairs of the East, with the proviso that the prerogatives of the bishop of Antioch be duly respected, in accordance with the Canon (sc. VI) of the Nicene Council; and the metropolitans of the Asian, Pontic and Thracian domains are to manage only the provinces belonging to them (these dignitaries, according to c. XXVIII of the 4th, have to be ordained after the bishop of Constantinople). It commands, in addition, that both patriarchs and metropolitans alike refrain from interloping beyond their own dioceses and provinces with the object of ordaining others or performing other ecclesiastical services in the parishes of others, without being invited to do so; and that the synod of each particular province shall manage the ecclesiastical matters of each province of the metropolitans, whether they be elections, or ordinations, or penances, or absolutions, or any other such matters; likewise, as regarding the affairs of each diocese of the patriarchs, the diocesan synod shall govern such matters of the diocese in question, as the Nicene Council has decreed (c. VI). For the same thing is involved in the decree of the Nicene Council that no bishop shall be ordained without the consent of the metropolitan, and in which the present Council says to the effect that the synod of each province (of the metropolitan, that is to say) shall govern the affairs of each province, respectively. As for the churches of God that are situated in the midst of barbarian nations, where there either were not enough bishops to make up a synod, or it was necessary for some scholarly bishop to go there in order to bolster up the Christians in their faith. These churches, I say, ought to be managed in accordance with the prevailing custom of the Fathers. To be more explicit, neighboring and abler bishops ought to go to them, in order to supply what is missing for a local synod. Which, though contrary to Canons, yet as a matter of necessity was allowed by the Council. Read Ap. cc. XXXIV and XXXV, and c. I of the Sixth.

Third Ecumenical Council of Ephesus canon 8

Quote

Our fellow Bishop Reginus, most beloved by God, and with him the most God-beloved Bishops of the province of the Cypriotes Zeno and Evagrius, has announced an innovation, a thing which is contrary to the ecclesiastical laws and the Canons of the Holy Apostles, and one which touches the freedom of all. Hence, since common ailments require more drastic treatment, on the ground that they do greater damage, and especially in view of the fact that the Bishop of Antioch, far from following the ancient custom, has been performing the ordinations in Cyprus, according to information given in libelli and by oral statements made by most pious gentlemen who have approached the Holy Council; therefore those who preside over the churches in Cyprus shall retain their privilege unaffected and inviolate, according to the Canons of the Holy Fathers and ancient custom, whereby they shall themselves perform the ordinations of the most reverent Bishops. The same rule shall hold good also with regard to the other diocese and churches everywhere, so that none of the Bishops most beloved by God shall take hold of any other province that was not formerly and from the beginning in his jurisdiction, or was not, that is to say, held by his predecessors. But if anyone has taken possession of any and has forcibly subjected it to his authority, he shall regive it back to its rightful possessor, in order that the Canons of the Fathers be not transgressed, nor the secular fastus be introduced, under the pretext of divine services; lest imperceptibly and little by little we lose the freedom which our Lord Jesus Christ, the Liberator of all men, has given us as a free gift by His own blood. It has therefore seemed best to the holy and Ecumenical Council that the rights of every province, formerly and from the beginning belonging to it, be preserved clear and inviolable, in accordance with the custom which prevailed of yore; each Metropolitan having permission to take copies of the proceedings for his own security. If, on the other hand, anyone introduce any form conflicting with the decrees which have now been sanctioned, it has seemed best to the entire holy and Ecumenical Council that it be invalid and of no effect.(Ap. c. XXXV; c. II of the 2nd; c. XX of the 6th; cc. XIII, XXII of Antioch; cc. III, IX, XII of Sardica).(Ap. c. XXXIV; cc. VI, VII of the 1st; c. XX of the 2nd; cc. XXXVI, XXXIX of the 6th; c. IX of Antioch.)Interpretation.Inasmuch as Cyprus, so far as concerned secular administration, was subject to the Duke of Antioch, and was wont to send it an army commander (or general), it came to pass that the Bishop of Antioch, in imitation of this secular and civil form and law, undertook to show authority over that same Cyprus, with regard to both the religious and the ecclesiastical administration, by ordaining the bishops in Cyprus extra-territorially and not as a matter of ancient custom. This, however, was a thing that was contrary to Ap. cc. XXXIV and XXXV. After receiving Archbishop Reginus of Constantia, which used to be called Salamis but is now known as Amochostos, and the bishops accompanying, namely, Zeno of Cyrene, and Evagrius of Solon, who in writing as well as viva voce reported these facts, the Council decrees by the present Canon that, in accordance with the Canons and in accordance with ancient custom, the Metropolitans of Cyprus are themselves to ordain the bishops in Cyprus, and to be left unmolested and unconstrained by anyone else. But, making the Canon general and catholic, the Fathers of this Council add that this same rule shall hold also in regard to diocese (or administrations) and provinces everywhere else, to the end that no bishop be permitted to usurp and appropriate any other province that has not formerly and from the beginning been subject either to his authority or to that of his predecessors. If, nevertheless, anyone should appropriate it forcibly, he must return it, in order that the Canons of the Fathers be not transgressed, and in order that prelates, under the pretext of sacerdotalism, may not cloak a secret ambition and vainglorious yearning for secular or worldly authority, and hence becoming slaves to injustice lose little by little the freedom which the liberator of all men Jesus Christ has graciously given us with His own blood; it has appeared reasonable to this holy Ecumenical Council that the righteous and just privileges be kept clear and inviolable which formerly and from the beginning as a matter of ancient custom each province has been entitled to. Accordingly, each Metropolitan shall have permission to receive a transcript of the present Canon for security and confirmation of the privileges of his metropolis. If, on the other hand, anyone should come out with a form, i.e., a civil law or royal decree, contrary to the present Canon, it has appeared reasonable to all this holy Council for that civil law to remain invalid and ineffective. Read also the Interpretations of Ap. cc. XXXIV and XXXV.

I have already posted how Met./Abp./EP/Pope Meletius the many numbered "honored" these canons when he placed the first episcopal foot authorized by the Phanar to step on the rights of the Russian Archdiocese in North America:

Archb. Metaxakis' of Athens speech to the Holy Synod of Greece in 1920 concerning his visit to America:

Quote

The Patriarchal Tome of 1908 directed the immediate assignment of a Greek Bishop in America. However I learned in America that for a decade, diplomatic pressures prevented the implementation of the Patriarchal Tome. Upon my arrival, I waited for the Russian Bishop to come to me; however, he did not. In order to give him the opportunity, I sent Archimandrites Chrysostom and Alexander to him. He, in turn, reciprocated by sending an Archimandrite to visit me. I then realized that he expected me to visit him, thus recognizing him as the canonical Bishop in America, under whose jurisdiction the Greek Church ought to belong. I held a press conference with the Greek and English language newspapers, in which I quoted Orthodox teaching relative to lands outside the existing Patriarchal boundaries that canon law places them under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Thus, the Church in America is under the canonical authority of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and only by its authority can certain actions be taken. Our presence in America is by virtue of the permission granted by the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the Tome of 1908, rendering us the only canonical jurisdiction[emph. in the original] No other such permission has been granted. We are aware only that the Patriarchate of Antioch requested the permission of the Patriarchate to send the Bishop of Seleucia to America for the needs of the Syrian Orthodox. Prior to this, Efthymios, who was ordained by the Russians for the Syrians, but never recognized by the Patriarchate of Antioch, was abandoned by the Russians. This event reinforced our position regarding canonicity in America. Throughout our presence in America, the Russian Bishop attempted indirectly to impose this position of hegemony, yet never openly or officially

Change Russian to OCA, and see how little has changed. The GOARCH was set up, not in ignorance of the Russian Archdiocese, but in defiance of it.

Archbishop Alexander stood on the canons, as does his successor Met. Tikhon of All American and Canada. The father of the canon 28 lie didn't have a canon to stand on. His successors in such ludicrous claims still don't.

« Last Edit: August 24, 2014, 06:09:32 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Now, onto the rest of the canons.The first has a lot of interpolation by the English translator of the Pedalion. Since the interpolation here is useful, and moreover correct (something not usual), I've left them in.

Quote

A Bishop must be ordained by two or three other Bishops.(c. IV of 1st C.; c. III of 7th C.).Interpretation.The word Bishop primarily and properly is applied, in the divine and holy Scriptures, to God, who supervises and oversees all things in the universe [Note of Translator. — Here, as in many other similar cases, a word of explanation needs to be added in English for the benefit of readers unfamiliar with the etymology of words; I observe, therefore, that the corresponding Greek word signifies "overseer."], as Job bears witness, saying: "This is the portion of an impious man from the Lord, and the heritage appointed to him by the Overseer" i.e., by God (Job 20:29). And again: "Thine oversight (or supervision) hath preserved my spirit" (ibid. 10:12). It is also applied to our Lord Jesus Christ, as the premier of Apostles Peter says concerning Him: "For ye were like sheep going astray; but have now returned unto the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls" (I Pet. 2:25). But secondarily and by grace this noun is also applied to those who have been designated by God, just as God Himself says concerning Eleazar: "Overseer Eleazar, a son of Aaron the priest" (Num. 4:16). And to Ezekiel God said: "Son of man, I have made thee a watchman over the house of Israel" (Ezek. 3:17). And, in sum, the word Overseers, or Bishops, in the Old Testament refers to supervisors and watchmen of the internal and ecclesiastical administrations and affairs, just as is written concerning the aforenamed Eleazar that he had "The oversight (i.e., supervision) of all the tabernacle" (Num. 4:16), and concerning the high priest Jehoiada that he appointed overseers over the house of the Lord: "And the priest appointed overseers over the house of the Lord" (II Kings 11:18); as well as of the external and civil affairs and administrations as supervisors, just as is written: "And Moses was wroth with the overseers of the host, with the captains over a thousand, and with the captains over a hundred" (Num. 31:14).Not one, however, of the Apostles was designated or named a bishop, or overseer, during the earthly lifetime of the Lord, who alone is the overseer of our souls; but the only authority they exercised was that of curing every disease and casting out demons (Matt. 10:1; Mk. 3:15). But after the resurrection of our Savior from the dead and His assumption into heaven, the Apostles, who had been sent forth by Him, as He Himself had been sent forth by the Father, into all the world, and had received all authority to bind and to loose and all the gracious gifts of the All-holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, they not only possessed the name of apostle by virtue of the facts themselves, but indeed even the name of bishop, or overseer, as sacred Epiphanius bears witness (Her. 27): "First were Peter and Paul, these two Apostles and Bishops." Likewise did all the rest, as the Fathers affirm. For this reason it was that they ordained, or decreed, that city bishops be ordained by three bishops or two. But also those who were preaching in the country and city, as sacred Clement says, in his first epistle to the Corinthians: "They appointed their firstfruits, trying them with the Spirit, as bishops and deacons of those who were going to believe in the future." Hence, too, Ignatius the God-bearer, in writing to the faithful in Tralles (a Greek city in Asia Minor), commands: "Respect your Bishop, too, like Christ, in accordance with what the blissful Apostles enjoined." Thus much is all we have to say concerning the word bishop.As for the Greek word corresponding to the English word ordain in the sense of appoint a person to an office, cheirotonia, it is etymologically derived from the Greek verb teino, meaning to stretch (forth the hands, for example); and it has two significations. For the word cheirotonia is used to name the simple action of choosing and designating one to hold a dignity of any kind, which was performed by the people by stretching forth their hands, according to that saying of Demosthenes: "Whomsoever you ordain a general" (in his first Philippic). And especially in accordance with the custom in vogue in the Church in olden days, when the multitudes would crowd together unhindered and ordain, or, more plainly speaking, designate the chief priests, or bishops, by stretching forth their hands, as Zonaras says, though afterwards the council held in Laodicea forbade this in its fifth Canon, wherein it said: "That ordinations, or, in other words, designations, as signified by votes, must not be performed in the presence of listeners." Today, however, the word ordination (cheirotonia) signifies the sacrament involving prayers and an invocation of the Holy Spirit in the course of which a bishop lays his hand upon the head of the ordinee, in accordance with that Apostolic saying: "Lay not hands upon anyone too quickly" And this fact is familiar to all. So this Canon prescribes that every chief priest, or prelate (whether he be a metropolitan, that is to say, or an archbishop or merely a bishop) is to be ordained by two bishops or three. Apparently the figure of speech is that which is called in English "hysteron proteron," but in Greek prothysteron, meaning the placing of what would naturally come first in a later position, and vice versa. For it would have been simpler and more usual to say without the figure of speech: "A bishop must be ordained by three other bishops or (at least) two." Thus the Apostolical Injunctions (which some have inaccurately translated into English as "Apostolical Constitutions") promulgate the same Canon without any figure of speech by saying: "We command that a bishop be ordained by three (other) bishops, or at any rate by at least two."Concord.Various other canons are in agreement with this Canon in their legislation. For all the bishops of a province (according to c. IV of the 1st C. and c. Ill of the 7th council and c. XIX of Antioch), or many (according to c. XIII of Carthage) must meet together and ordain a bishop. But since this is difficult, the required number is reduced to three as the minimum, and the rest of them participate in the ordination by means of their letters. In confirming this Ap. c. the c. LVIII of Carthage says that this ancient form shall be kept, in order that no less than three bishops may suffice for the ordination of a bishop, including, that is to say, the metropolitan and two other bishops. The same thing is said in c. I of the local synod held in Constantinople. And c. XII of Laodicea ordains that bishops should be appointed to the eccelsiastical office only with the approval of surrounding bishops. But if, by chance, only one bishop is left in office in any one province, and though invited and asked by the Metropolitan, he refuses to go or to act by letters to ordain a candidate for the prelacy, then the Metropolitan must designate and ordain him by means of bishops drawn from a neighboring foreign (i.e. outside) province, according to c. VI of the Sardican. The Apostolical Injunctions (Bk. VIII, ch. 27), on the other hand, command that anyone ordained by a single bishop be deposed from office along with the one who ordained him, except only in case of persecution or some other impediment by reason whereof a number of bishops cannot get together and he has to be ordained by one alone, just as was Siderius ordained bishop of Palaibisca, according to Synesius, not by three, but by one bishop, Philo, because of the scarcity of bishops in those times.(c. XIX of Antioch; c. XII of Laodicea; c. VI of the Sardican; and c. I of Constantinople).

This is basic stuff.It is important to note the issue of a bishop being consecrated by a single bishop as valid, given warranted circumstances, and that the Metropolitan or highest episcopal authority as defined by Apostolic canon 34 can empower a single bishop left alone in a province (or region, if I can interpret it so) to consecrate another bishop in the province, i.e. the jurisdiction, and the requirement of neighboring bishops and the highest episcopal authority be involved in the consecration of a bishop. But only if they have jurisdiction in the land in question. All points were involved in the consecration of the OCA episcopate for North America.Fr. Joasph Bolotov had come in the mission to America in 1794 (it taking nearly a year to arrive in Alaska), reporting to the Church the progress of the mission and to the Court the fur traders' abuse of the natives. In 1796 the Most Holy Governing Synod and the Czar decided to make Fr. Joasaph an auxiliary bishop to the bishop of Irkutsk, the nearest Orthodox bishoprick and the only bishop of the region. It took until 1798 for his appointment to reach him, and the Most Holy Governing Synod, the highest episcopal authority per Apostolic Canon 34 at the time in those lands-there being no other Orthodox bishop anywhere near, no other autocephalous Orthodox jurisdiction for thousands of miles in the Old World side of the Bering Strait and of course none existent on the New World side either (except, Russia again, whose spiritual children the Ludwell-Paradise families lived in Virginia on the other side of the continent, pastored by the Metropolitan of St. Petersburg and the London chaplain. Btw, a friend of the family was the brother of the chief sponsor of the Aleutian mission in St. Petersburg)-ordered Archm. Joasaph to go to Ikutsk. The MHGS had by its authority empowered the bishop of Irkutsk to consecrate Joasaph as his vicar bishop of Kodiak, with jurisdiction over the Aleutians Islands and the adjoining American lands. Consecrate by the bishop of Irkutsk's hands alone, as there were no neighboring foreign bishops at all, and Irkutsk-and Alaska-being too far for the bishops to gather together for the consecration (as especially as St. Petersburg wanted to give Fr. Joasaph authority vis-a-vis the abusive traders ASAP).

To give an idea of the distance, Irkutsk is at the southern tip of the long lake in the map on the left. In the middle map, you can see that not even the Aleutians can be seen in the vicinity.America might be "barbarian lands," but it was joined by and through episcopal authority to the episcopal see of Irkutsk. Although Bp. Joasaph did not live to be enthroned in America-he perished in a ship wreck returning-his see of Kodiak remained until 1823 (oddly the Most Holy Governing Synod went over the Czar's objection in suppressing the see). In the meantime, the bishoprick of Irkutsk continued to fulfill its duties under canon II of Constantinople I, sending as ordered by the Most Holy Governing Synod in the begining of 1823, the man destined to succeed Bp. Joasaph, Fr. John Beniamenovich (named by the Irkutsk seminary chief after the recently deceased bishop who consecrated Bp. Joasaph), later Abp. (then Met.) St. Innocent Equal-to-the-Apostles and Enlightener of Alaska and Apostle to America. Met. Tikhon succeeds him in the exclusive Orthodox canonical jurisdiction over North America.

In that, the bishop of Irkutsk demonstrated Apostolic Canon 2:

Quote

2. A Presbyter must be ordained by a single Bishop, and so must a Deacon and other Clergymen.Interpretation.This Canon prescribes that Presbyter and Deacon and all other Clergymen, Subdeacons, that is to say, Readers, and Cantors, etc. shall be ordained by a single Bishop.

as he ordained Fr. John/St. Innocent as priest, and sent him to Unalaska, to pastor to the Orthodox natives there already converted. A bishop in a land makes, as St. Ignatius said, it the Catholic Church. For 122 years, that only bishop in the lands of North America were sent by the Russian Church exclusively. A priest cannot ordain his successor nor his colleague, and a lone and iterant priest cannot erect a jurisdiction over a land. Much less a group of layman. They can lay the ground work, and evangelize, but their must be followup for a local Church to rise.

« Last Edit: August 24, 2014, 10:41:56 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The Slavic situation seems a bit sordid on all sides. Glory be to God he is able to secure his faithful in the midst of any chaos or tragedy.

what Slavic situation?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

As a friend of mine is apt to say - gather the signatures of 49,999 other Orthodox Bishops and send that petition to Istanbul.

Petition for what? And why would it be sent to Istanbul?

« Last Edit: August 24, 2014, 10:21:44 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

A Bishop shall not abandon his own parish and go outside of it to interlope to another one, even though urged by a number of persons to go there, unless there be a good reason for doing so, on the ground that he can be of greater help to the inhabitants there, by reason of his piety. And even then he must not do so of his own accord, but in obedience to the judgment of many Bishops and at their urgent request.(Cf. c. XV of the 1st; c. V of the 4th; cc. XVI, XXI of Antioch; cc. I, II of the Sardican; and c. LVII of Carthage.)Interpretation.Interloping and intrusion from one province to another is a different matter from transfer and emigration. Thus, interloping is when a bishop actuated by greed and his own preferences leaves his own province (or, not having a province of his own, is without a cure) and grabs another illogically. Such interloping is condemned and is penalized with canonical penances, according to cc. I and II of the Sardican. Transfer, on the other hand is when as a result of great need and for the sake of bolstering up piety at the request of many bishops, a prelate goes from one province to another for greater spiritual benefit to the inhabitants of the latter (and even then perhaps only for a season, and not for the rest of his life). This change is one permitted in certain cases of accomodation. Hence it may be said that the present Canon too ordains that it is not allowable for a bishop to leave his own province greedily and of his own accord, without any reasonable cause, and to interlope into another, even though he be urged to do so by others. It is only when there is a good excuse and a just reason forcing him to take such a step that he may go to another province, be it larger or smaller or vacant; in other words, when he cause the Christians of that province greater profit to the soul, and spiritual benefit, with the pious words of his teaching, than some other bishop. Yet he must not even do this of his own accord, that is to say, on his own initiative, but may do it only in conformity with the judgment and vote of many bishops and at their most urgent request and demand.

Of the many Orthodox bishops in North America in 1918, NOT A SINGLE ONE INVITED Met./Abp./EP/Pope Meletius here, nor his "synodical vicar bishop/exarch" Alexander, deposed with him by the Church of Greece. Not only did they not increase piety in North America, but they spread schism amongst the Greek Orthodox themselves, let alone attempting to overthrow canonical Orthodox order in North America, as was enjoyed under the exclusive Orthodox canonical status of the Russian Archdiocese of America.

« Last Edit: August 24, 2014, 11:17:28 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The Slavic situation seems a bit sordid on all sides. Glory be to God he is able to secure his faithful in the midst of any chaos or tragedy.

what Slavic situation?

Take your time. It will come to you.

No, I'm not a mind reader and the 300+ million Slavs are up to a lot, so what you are thinking about won't come to me-I don't offhand remember you posting about anything in particular on them recently.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Isn't that where the EP hears appeals? If the EP isn't swayed by 49,999 Orthodox Bishops, perhaps he should be in schism.

But nothing is being appealed.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

A Bishop shall not abandon his own parish and go outside of it to interlope to another one, even though urged by a number of persons to go there, unless there be a good reason for doing so, on the ground that he can be of greater help to the inhabitants there, by reason of his piety. And even then he must not do so of his own accord, but in obedience to the judgment of many Bishops and at their urgent request.(Cf. c. XV of the 1st; c. V of the 4th; cc. XVI, XXI of Antioch; cc. I, II of the Sardican; and c. LVII of Carthage.)Interpretation.Interloping and intrusion from one province to another is a different matter from transfer and emigration. Thus, interloping is when a bishop actuated by greed and his own preferences leaves his own province (or, not having a province of his own, is without a cure) and grabs another illogically. Such interloping is condemned and is penalized with canonical penances, according to cc. I and II of the Sardican. Transfer, on the other hand is when as a result of great need and for the sake of bolstering up piety at the request of many bishops, a prelate goes from one province to another for greater spiritual benefit to the inhabitants of the latter (and even then perhaps only for a season, and not for the rest of his life). This change is one permitted in certain cases of accomodation. Hence it may be said that the present Canon too ordains that it is not allowable for a bishop to leave his own province greedily and of his own accord, without any reasonable cause, and to interlope into another, even though he be urged to do so by others. It is only when there is a good excuse and a just reason forcing him to take such a step that he may go to another province, be it larger or smaller or vacant; in other words, when he cause the Christians of that province greater profit to the soul, and spiritual benefit, with the pious words of his teaching, than some other bishop. Yet he must not even do this of his own accord, that is to say, on his own initiative, but may do it only in conformity with the judgment and vote of many bishops and at their most urgent request and demand.

Of the many Orthodox bishops in North America in 1918, NOT A SINGLE ONE INVITED Met./Abp./EP/Pope Meletius here, nor his "synodical vicar bishop/exarch" Alexander, deposed with him by the Church of Greece. Not only did they not increase piety in North America, but they spread schism amongst the Greek Orthodox themselves, let alone attempting to overthrow canonical Orthodox order in North America, as was enjoyed under the exclusive Orthodox canonical status of the Russian Archdiocese of America.

Hard to tell how the Karlovsky Synod of bishops abandoning (willingly or unwillingly) their sees having no jurisdiction in North America would have exclusive Orthodox canonical status in North America.

In contrast, Met. Platon, Abp./Met. St. Innocent's successor and Met. Tikhon of the OCA's predecessor, had his exclusive Orthodox canonical status over North America confirmed by the Supreme Church Administration referenced by Ukaz 362, namely Patriarch St. Tikhon and the Holy Synod of Russia:

Quote

To the Most Eminent Platon, Metropolitan ofKherson and Odessa, pro tempore Ruling theNorth American Diocese.

By a resolution of the Sacred Synod dated April 14 /27th 1922 Your Eminence were appointed a pro tempore Ruler of the North American Diocese, and the Archpriest Theodore Pashkovsky— bishop of Chicago, to be consecrated in America.Now having taken cognizance of the situation of the American Church we deemed it necessary to appoint you to rule the North American Church releasing you from ruling the Diocese of Kherson and Odessa.Signed: TIKHON PATRIARCH of Moscow and All Russia.September 20th1923No. 41Moscow, Monastery of Don.

Met. Platon had been verbally appointed to return to his see (he had exclusive Orthodox canonical jurisdiction over North America (1907-14) as Archbishop of the Aleutians and North America, succeeding Abp. later Pat. St. Tikhon there) and had been confirmed by the All American Sabor-an institution instituted by St. Tikhon on his departure preparing for Abp. Platon's arrival-in 1923. Again, Arbp. Platon had exclusive Orthodox canonical status over North America BEFORE the Phanar even issued its THEORETICAL claim to jurisdiction in North America in 1908, and he had returned to North America when the Church of Greece had deposed its Metropolitan Meletios and his supposed exarch the deposed bishop Alexander-the full Synod of all the Bishops of the Church of Greece gathering to hold the canonical acts of the two as utterly void-and in exile the two organized their Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America, amongst the other Greek splinter groups in the States. Not in ignorance of the exclusive Orthodox canonical jurisdiction of Met. Platon, but in opposition to it.ROCOR wasn't even in the running.

Btw, the uncanonical charter that the deposed Archbishop of Athens turned ethnarch of the Phanar (there are plenty of canons against such a thing, btw) named four dioceses. Two-New York and San Francisco-had bishops already from the exclusive Orthodox canonical jurisdiction in North America. Chicago was named a third. Per the order of Patriarch Tikhon and the Holy Synod of Russia-who had exclusive jurisdiction in North America, exercised by its Metropolitan Platon of All America and Canada-Theodore Pashkovsky (who had served in the US and came back with Abp. St. Tikhon, serving with him in Poland until his elevation as Patriarch) was consecrated as Bishop Theophilos of Chicago December 3, 1922. The following year the Greeks uncanonically consecrated the bishop called for in their charter. Bishop Theophilos would go on to succeed Met. Platon as Met. Theophilos.

« Last Edit: August 25, 2014, 12:30:52 AM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The Slavic situation seems a bit sordid on all sides. Glory be to God he is able to secure his faithful in the midst of any chaos or tragedy.

what Slavic situation?

Take your time. It will come to you.

You may need to give him hints, like "ABC news, NBC news, Fox news, CNN, virtually any news outlet on the internet, etc."

are they covering the fires of schism the Phanar is fanning in the Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Reply #25: What spiritual court is going to hear the EP's 106 year old violation of Canon 14?

The Supremest Court has already heard it.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Because you have just made ROCOR's complete case for domination of NA.

Bravo! A tautology and ludicrous claim all in one Father!

By definition, the bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia abandoned their sees as condemned by Apostolic Canon 14-is that too obvious, Father?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Reply #25: What spiritual court is going to hear the EP's 106 year old violation of Canon 14 and enforce what the Supreme Court of the USA has already decided?

The Supremest Court has already heard it.

See addition in purple text.

What in particular-SCOTUS has decided a lot.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

A Bishop shall not abandon his own parish and go outside of it to interlope to another one, even though urged by a number of persons to go there, unless there be a good reason for doing so, on the ground that he can be of greater help to the inhabitants there, by reason of his piety. And even then he must not do so of his own accord, but in obedience to the judgment of many Bishops and at their urgent request.(Cf. c. XV of the 1st; c. V of the 4th; cc. XVI, XXI of Antioch; cc. I, II of the Sardican; and c. LVII of Carthage.)Interpretation.Interloping and intrusion from one province to another is a different matter from transfer and emigration. Thus, interloping is when a bishop actuated by greed and his own preferences leaves his own province (or, not having a province of his own, is without a cure) and grabs another illogically. Such interloping is condemned and is penalized with canonical penances, according to cc. I and II of the Sardican. Transfer, on the other hand is when as a result of great need and for the sake of bolstering up piety at the request of many bishops, a prelate goes from one province to another for greater spiritual benefit to the inhabitants of the latter (and even then perhaps only for a season, and not for the rest of his life). This change is one permitted in certain cases of accomodation. Hence it may be said that the present Canon too ordains that it is not allowable for a bishop to leave his own province greedily and of his own accord, without any reasonable cause, and to interlope into another, even though he be urged to do so by others. It is only when there is a good excuse and a just reason forcing him to take such a step that he may go to another province, be it larger or smaller or vacant; in other words, when he cause the Christians of that province greater profit to the soul, and spiritual benefit, with the pious words of his teaching, than some other bishop. Yet he must not even do this of his own accord, that is to say, on his own initiative, but may do it only in conformity with the judgment and vote of many bishops and at their most urgent request and demand.

Of the many Orthodox bishops in North America in 1918, NOT A SINGLE ONE INVITED Met./Abp./EP/Pope Meletius here, nor his "synodical vicar bishop/exarch" Alexander, deposed with him by the Church of Greece. Not only did they not increase piety in North America, but they spread schism amongst the Greek Orthodox themselves, let alone attempting to overthrow canonical Orthodox order in North America, as was enjoyed under the exclusive Orthodox canonical status of the Russian Archdiocese of America.

Hard to tell how the Karlovsky Synod of bishops abandoning (willingly or unwillingly) their sees having no jurisdiction in North America would have exclusive Orthodox canonical status in North America.

In contrast, Met. Platon, Abp./Met. St. Innocent's successor and Met. Tikhon of the OCA's predecessor, had his exclusive Orthodox canonical status over North America confirmed by the Supreme Church Administration referenced by Ukaz 362, namely Patriarch St. Tikhon and the Holy Synod of Russia:

Quote

To the Most Eminent Platon, Metropolitan ofKherson and Odessa, pro tempore Ruling theNorth American Diocese.

By a resolution of the Sacred Synod dated April 14 /27th 1922 Your Eminence were appointed a pro tempore Ruler of the North American Diocese, and the Archpriest Theodore Pashkovsky— bishop of Chicago, to be consecrated in America.Now having taken cognizance of the situation of the American Church we deemed it necessary to appoint you to rule the North American Church releasing you from ruling the Diocese of Kherson and Odessa.Signed: TIKHON PATRIARCH of Moscow and All Russia.September 20th1923No. 41Moscow, Monastery of Don.

Met. Platon had been verbally appointed to return to his see (he had exclusive Orthodox canonical jurisdiction over North America (1907-14) as Archbishop of the Aleutians and North America, succeeding Abp. later Pat. St. Tikhon there) and had been confirmed by the All American Sabor-an institution instituted by St. Tikhon on his departure preparing for Abp. Platon's arrival-in 1923. Again, Arbp. Platon had exclusive Orthodox canonical status over North America BEFORE the Phanar even issued its THEORETICAL claim to jurisdiction in North America in 1908, and he had returned to North America when the Church of Greece had deposed its Metropolitan Meletios and his supposed exarch the deposed bishop Alexander-the full Synod of all the Bishops of the Church of Greece gathering to hold the canonical acts of the two as utterly void-and in exile the two organized their Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America, amongst the other Greek splinter groups in the States. Not in ignorance of the exclusive Orthodox canonical jurisdiction of Met. Platon, but in opposition to it.

So what? You jump over the part where, if you claims are true prior to the 1920's, ROCOR gets the whole shebang in the late 20's, 30's, and beyond.

Now I, on the other hand, am more of a friend to the OCA than you. I claim that it was a canonical mess, that the OCA was a faithful jurisdiction despite the canonical mess, and that it did some good, and that is it a legitimate Orthodox jurisdiction in NA today.

Your argument, however, would give ROCOR sole jurisdictional authority in the US. Good luck with that.

Reply #25: What spiritual court is going to hear the EP's 106 year old violation of Canon 14 and enforce what the Supreme Court of the USA has already decided?

The Supremest Court has already heard it.

See addition in purple text.

What in particular-SCOTUS has decided a lot.

The EP may have "friends" in high places but the OCA has the law on her side. The OCA has chosen not to enforce the violations of Canon 14 for the betterment of Orthodoxy - hoping that the EP and Chambesy would restore canonical order. Except in the era of the 24 hour news cycle - these things don't occur overnight.

Reply #25: What spiritual court is going to hear the EP's 106 year old violation of Canon 14 and enforce what the Supreme Court of the USA has already decided?

The Supremest Court has already heard it.

See addition in purple text.

What in particular-SCOTUS has decided a lot.

The EP may have "friends" in high places but the OCA has the law on her side. The OCA has chosen not to enforce the violations of Canon 14 for the betterment of Orthodoxy - hoping that the EP and Chambesy would restore canonical order. Except in the era of the 24 hour news cycle - these things don't occur overnight.

Ok but what is the reference? Isa was asking a legitimate question. I would like to hear the answer myself.

As a friend of mine is apt to say - gather the signatures of 49,999 other Orthodox Bishops and send that petition to Istanbul.

Petition for what?

What you assert in the OP.

As the Phanar has no jurisdiction over that, it would just be a waste of paper.

49,999 Orthodox Bishops weren't required to declare Albania an autocephalous church. I'm just saying, you would petition the EP like anyone else.

Like Greece, Albania didn't petition the Phanar for autocephaly, it took it. And it was born of the OCA-in the Boston Cathedral where Fr.-later Metropolitan (and Prime Minister) in Albania-served the first Albanian DL in history under the exclusive Orthodox canonical jurisdiction over North America. Ironically, just over a week before the Phanar issued its first THEORETICAL claim to jurisdiction over North America in its 1908 uncanonical Tomos.

The Phanariots wasted no time howling throughout the Old World from the New. From "Pharos," the official organ of the Patriarchate of Alexandria, quoting the press in Greece"

Quote

“The “Pan-Hellenic Power/State” nonetheless [the quotation comes after the discussion by the professor of International Law at the National University of Greece on the then recent 1908 Tomos] taking as a starting point from the retention of the Russian bishop in Alaska, expresses the opinion “that Ecumenical Patriarchate did wrong, both to the canons of the Church and according to [the fact] that it had no right to transfer to the Church of Greece the privilege furnished it by the Ecumenical Councils.” But it asks “for what justification does the Russian Church retain its jurisdiction over the Church of Alaska and after the Cession of it to the United States, if the Tomos of the Great Church requires among the Greek Churches in the diaspora, in order that the jurisdiction of the Sacred Synod of Greece be extended over them? And this certainly—adding further—if uncanonical, would be the lesser evil. Scandalousness yet results from the establishment of this Russia bishop of Alaska in the United States and the extension of his spiritual authority automatically and besides the justification of no one over the whole of America. And most rightly whenever the bishop thus shall make an ordination of priests and ‘ founding churches independently as it committed some time before through the ordination of the Albanian Noli a priest of the “independent Orthodox Albanian Church in the United States and Canada” creating the employment of the Albanian language in its rites and this be regarded scandal amid other Orthodox Churches of the New World, which according as Greeks, and further by the new Tomos were already brought under under the spiritual rule of the Church of Greece, required to commemorate the name of the Ecumenical Patriarch; to receive from him the holy chrism, to receive his blessings and to offer some quantiy for the fund of the Patriarchate. We believe that “this issue will be regarded the earnest position of the discussion in the Sacred Synod of the Great Church, and so quite rightly so, as much as besides the Russian bishop of Alaska having ordained Mr. Noli entitled as priest of the Orthodox Albanian episcopacy of the United States and Canada and in the choice, this wrought in Boston in Albanian, dealing irreverently towards the Patriarch and promised that independent Albanian and Orthodox Church will be founded everywhere gearing up to ordain a bishop also.”

Isn't that where the EP hears appeals? If the EP isn't swayed by 49,999 Orthodox Bishops, perhaps he should be in schism.

But nothing is being appealed.

Who is more influential - a Bishop or an Archon? a spiritual power or a temporal power.

an archon only has much power as you let him. Christ gives a bishop His power.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

an archon only has much power as you let him. Christ gives a bishop His power.

An EP ultimately recognized Greece's and Albania's unilateral autocephaly - don't you believe that a future EP would regularize the OCA's autocepahly. After all, there have been 3 EPs since the OCA was granted autocephaly

Optimistic Stance:

and with a chance that a convert (I'm thinking Met. Athenagoras of Belgium) being elected as EP - could he recognize the OCA's autocephaly and nip the whole thing in the bud?

Pessimistic Stance:

and with a chance that a hardliner (I'm thinking Met. Elphidophoros of Proussa) being elected as EP - could he excommunicate the OCA and sever Orthodox Christianity?

Reply #25: What spiritual court is going to hear the EP's 106 year old violation of Canon 14 and enforce what the Supreme Court of the USA has already decided?

The Supremest Court has already heard it.

See addition in purple text.

What in particular-SCOTUS has decided a lot.

The EP may have "friends" in high places but the OCA has the law on her side. The OCA has chosen not to enforce the violations of Canon 14 for the betterment of Orthodoxy - hoping that the EP and Chambesy would restore canonical order. Except in the era of the 24 hour news cycle - these things don't occur overnight.

Ok but what is the reference? Isa was asking a legitimate question. I would like to hear the answer myself.

Isa has cited Supreme Court cases upholding the legal rights in America of the OCA's corporate predecessors; however, the OCA has not pursued the EP's violation of Canon 14 since one clearly occurred with the Tomos of 1908 and/or even the establishment of GOARCH in 1922. If a canon has been violated, which spiritual court would hear the case. Isa thinks that the US Supreme Court is enough. If so, how would that decision be enforced?

A Bishop shall not abandon his own parish and go outside of it to interlope to another one, even though urged by a number of persons to go there, unless there be a good reason for doing so, on the ground that he can be of greater help to the inhabitants there, by reason of his piety. And even then he must not do so of his own accord, but in obedience to the judgment of many Bishops and at their urgent request.(Cf. c. XV of the 1st; c. V of the 4th; cc. XVI, XXI of Antioch; cc. I, II of the Sardican; and c. LVII of Carthage.)Interpretation.Interloping and intrusion from one province to another is a different matter from transfer and emigration. Thus, interloping is when a bishop actuated by greed and his own preferences leaves his own province (or, not having a province of his own, is without a cure) and grabs another illogically. Such interloping is condemned and is penalized with canonical penances, according to cc. I and II of the Sardican. Transfer, on the other hand is when as a result of great need and for the sake of bolstering up piety at the request of many bishops, a prelate goes from one province to another for greater spiritual benefit to the inhabitants of the latter (and even then perhaps only for a season, and not for the rest of his life). This change is one permitted in certain cases of accomodation. Hence it may be said that the present Canon too ordains that it is not allowable for a bishop to leave his own province greedily and of his own accord, without any reasonable cause, and to interlope into another, even though he be urged to do so by others. It is only when there is a good excuse and a just reason forcing him to take such a step that he may go to another province, be it larger or smaller or vacant; in other words, when he cause the Christians of that province greater profit to the soul, and spiritual benefit, with the pious words of his teaching, than some other bishop. Yet he must not even do this of his own accord, that is to say, on his own initiative, but may do it only in conformity with the judgment and vote of many bishops and at their most urgent request and demand.

Of the many Orthodox bishops in North America in 1918, NOT A SINGLE ONE INVITED Met./Abp./EP/Pope Meletius here, nor his "synodical vicar bishop/exarch" Alexander, deposed with him by the Church of Greece. Not only did they not increase piety in North America, but they spread schism amongst the Greek Orthodox themselves, let alone attempting to overthrow canonical Orthodox order in North America, as was enjoyed under the exclusive Orthodox canonical status of the Russian Archdiocese of America.

Hard to tell how the Karlovsky Synod of bishops abandoning (willingly or unwillingly) their sees having no jurisdiction in North America would have exclusive Orthodox canonical status in North America.

In contrast, Met. Platon, Abp./Met. St. Innocent's successor and Met. Tikhon of the OCA's predecessor, had his exclusive Orthodox canonical status over North America confirmed by the Supreme Church Administration referenced by Ukaz 362, namely Patriarch St. Tikhon and the Holy Synod of Russia:

Quote

To the Most Eminent Platon, Metropolitan ofKherson and Odessa, pro tempore Ruling theNorth American Diocese.

By a resolution of the Sacred Synod dated April 14 /27th 1922 Your Eminence were appointed a pro tempore Ruler of the North American Diocese, and the Archpriest Theodore Pashkovsky— bishop of Chicago, to be consecrated in America.Now having taken cognizance of the situation of the American Church we deemed it necessary to appoint you to rule the North American Church releasing you from ruling the Diocese of Kherson and Odessa.Signed: TIKHON PATRIARCH of Moscow and All Russia.September 20th1923No. 41Moscow, Monastery of Don.

Met. Platon had been verbally appointed to return to his see (he had exclusive Orthodox canonical jurisdiction over North America (1907-14) as Archbishop of the Aleutians and North America, succeeding Abp. later Pat. St. Tikhon there) and had been confirmed by the All American Sabor-an institution instituted by St. Tikhon on his departure preparing for Abp. Platon's arrival-in 1923. Again, Arbp. Platon had exclusive Orthodox canonical status over North America BEFORE the Phanar even issued its THEORETICAL claim to jurisdiction in North America in 1908, and he had returned to North America when the Church of Greece had deposed its Metropolitan Meletios and his supposed exarch the deposed bishop Alexander-the full Synod of all the Bishops of the Church of Greece gathering to hold the canonical acts of the two as utterly void-and in exile the two organized their Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America, amongst the other Greek splinter groups in the States. Not in ignorance of the exclusive Orthodox canonical jurisdiction of Met. Platon, but in opposition to it.

So what? You jump over the part where, if you claims are true prior to the 1920's, ROCOR gets the whole shebang in the late 20's, 30's, and beyond.

Now I, on the other hand, am more of a friend to the OCA than you. I claim that it was a canonical mess, that the OCA was a faithful jurisdiction despite the canonical mess, and that it did some good, and that is it a legitimate Orthodox jurisdiction in NA today.

Your argument, however, would give ROCOR sole jurisdictional authority in the US. Good luck with that.

ROCOR didn't exist at all prior to the 1920's, and was ordered by Patriarch St. Tikhon and the Holy Synod of Russia to disband after its first meeting in Karlovski, which it did.It did reconstitute itself afterwards, but on its own authority-as the canons show, a big no-no.

None of the canons quoted thus far give ROCOR jurisdiction or canonical authority over North America. In fact, not a one of the Sacred Canons can be cited in support of ROCOR's claims. They're in even a worse shape there than the Phanar, its fellow maker of that canonical mess you refer to, which resulting from ignoring the canons and the OCA's exclusive Orthodox canonical jurisdiction over North America. As St. Nikodemus points out, the canons which form the basis of and uphold the OCA's exclusive canonical jurisdiction over North America were laid down by the Fathers to prevent just that canonical mess you refer to.

Remove not the ancient marker which your Fathers have raised.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

an archon only has much power as you let him. Christ gives a bishop His power.

An EP ultimately recognized Greece's and Albania's unilateral autocephaly - don't you believe that a future EP would regularize the OCA's autocepahly. After all, there have been 3 EPs since the OCA was granted autocephaly

Optimistic Stance:

and with a chance that a convert (I'm thinking Met. Athenagoras of Belgium) being elected as EP - could he recognize the OCA's autocephaly and nip the whole thing in the bud?

Pessimistic Stance:

and with a chance that a hardliner (I'm thinking Met. Elphidophoros of Proussa) being elected as EP - could he excommunicate the OCA and sever Orthodox Christianity?

Unfortunately the present occupant is grooming your second scenario.

It will be interesting-and telling-what happens with the Phanar threatening now to revoke the autocephaly of the Czech Lands and Slovakia. And if the Episcopal Assemblies survive another year.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

an archon only has much power as you let him. Christ gives a bishop His power.

An EP ultimately recognized Greece's and Albania's unilateral autocephaly - don't you believe that a future EP would regularize the OCA's autocepahly. After all, there have been 3 EPs since the OCA was granted autocephaly

Optimistic Stance:

and with a chance that a convert (I'm thinking Met. Athenagoras of Belgium) being elected as EP - could he recognize the OCA's autocephaly and nip the whole thing in the bud?

Pessimistic Stance:

and with a chance that a hardliner (I'm thinking Met. Elphidophoros of Proussa) being elected as EP - could he excommunicate the OCA and sever Orthodox Christianity?

Unfortunately the present occupant is grooming your second scenario.

It will be interesting-and telling-what happens with the Phanar threatening now to revoke the autocephaly of the Czech Lands and Slovakia.

I don't see such a thing happening. I can't explain why; I can't imagine an autocephaly being revoked over trivial things.

an archon only has much power as you let him. Christ gives a bishop His power.

An EP ultimately recognized Greece's and Albania's unilateral autocephaly - don't you believe that a future EP would regularize the OCA's autocepahly. After all, there have been 3 EPs since the OCA was granted autocephaly

Optimistic Stance:

and with a chance that a convert (I'm thinking Met. Athenagoras of Belgium) being elected as EP - could he recognize the OCA's autocephaly and nip the whole thing in the bud?

Pessimistic Stance:

and with a chance that a hardliner (I'm thinking Met. Elphidophoros of Proussa) being elected as EP - could he excommunicate the OCA and sever Orthodox Christianity?

Unfortunately the present occupant is grooming your second scenario.

It will be interesting-and telling-what happens with the Phanar threatening now to revoke the autocephaly of the Czech Lands and Slovakia.

I don't see such a thing happening. I can't explain why; I can't imagine an autocephaly being revoked over trivial things.

I don't see it happening either, which makes it all the more foolish that the threat was issued.

New episcopal blood will hopefully keep them going. Met. Joseph taking over for Met. Philip of blessed memory - something positive can come out of that. I remain optimistic.

I don't think Metropolitan Philip of blessed memory was one of the strategic funerals often talked about as needed. I do wish Abp. Demetrios many, many years! His departure can be fatal.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

A Bishop shall not abandon his own parish and go outside of it to interlope to another one, even though urged by a number of persons to go there, unless there be a good reason for doing so, on the ground that he can be of greater help to the inhabitants there, by reason of his piety. And even then he must not do so of his own accord, but in obedience to the judgment of many Bishops and at their urgent request.(Cf. c. XV of the 1st; c. V of the 4th; cc. XVI, XXI of Antioch; cc. I, II of the Sardican; and c. LVII of Carthage.)Interpretation.Interloping and intrusion from one province to another is a different matter from transfer and emigration. Thus, interloping is when a bishop actuated by greed and his own preferences leaves his own province (or, not having a province of his own, is without a cure) and grabs another illogically. Such interloping is condemned and is penalized with canonical penances, according to cc. I and II of the Sardican. Transfer, on the other hand is when as a result of great need and for the sake of bolstering up piety at the request of many bishops, a prelate goes from one province to another for greater spiritual benefit to the inhabitants of the latter (and even then perhaps only for a season, and not for the rest of his life). This change is one permitted in certain cases of accomodation. Hence it may be said that the present Canon too ordains that it is not allowable for a bishop to leave his own province greedily and of his own accord, without any reasonable cause, and to interlope into another, even though he be urged to do so by others. It is only when there is a good excuse and a just reason forcing him to take such a step that he may go to another province, be it larger or smaller or vacant; in other words, when he cause the Christians of that province greater profit to the soul, and spiritual benefit, with the pious words of his teaching, than some other bishop. Yet he must not even do this of his own accord, that is to say, on his own initiative, but may do it only in conformity with the judgment and vote of many bishops and at their most urgent request and demand.

Of the many Orthodox bishops in North America in 1918, NOT A SINGLE ONE INVITED Met./Abp./EP/Pope Meletius here, nor his "synodical vicar bishop/exarch" Alexander, deposed with him by the Church of Greece. Not only did they not increase piety in North America, but they spread schism amongst the Greek Orthodox themselves, let alone attempting to overthrow canonical Orthodox order in North America, as was enjoyed under the exclusive Orthodox canonical status of the Russian Archdiocese of America.

Hard to tell how the Karlovsky Synod of bishops abandoning (willingly or unwillingly) their sees having no jurisdiction in North America would have exclusive Orthodox canonical status in North America.

In contrast, Met. Platon, Abp./Met. St. Innocent's successor and Met. Tikhon of the OCA's predecessor, had his exclusive Orthodox canonical status over North America confirmed by the Supreme Church Administration referenced by Ukaz 362, namely Patriarch St. Tikhon and the Holy Synod of Russia:

Quote

To the Most Eminent Platon, Metropolitan ofKherson and Odessa, pro tempore Ruling theNorth American Diocese.

By a resolution of the Sacred Synod dated April 14 /27th 1922 Your Eminence were appointed a pro tempore Ruler of the North American Diocese, and the Archpriest Theodore Pashkovsky— bishop of Chicago, to be consecrated in America.Now having taken cognizance of the situation of the American Church we deemed it necessary to appoint you to rule the North American Church releasing you from ruling the Diocese of Kherson and Odessa.Signed: TIKHON PATRIARCH of Moscow and All Russia.September 20th1923No. 41Moscow, Monastery of Don.

Met. Platon had been verbally appointed to return to his see (he had exclusive Orthodox canonical jurisdiction over North America (1907-14) as Archbishop of the Aleutians and North America, succeeding Abp. later Pat. St. Tikhon there) and had been confirmed by the All American Sabor-an institution instituted by St. Tikhon on his departure preparing for Abp. Platon's arrival-in 1923. Again, Arbp. Platon had exclusive Orthodox canonical status over North America BEFORE the Phanar even issued its THEORETICAL claim to jurisdiction in North America in 1908, and he had returned to North America when the Church of Greece had deposed its Metropolitan Meletios and his supposed exarch the deposed bishop Alexander-the full Synod of all the Bishops of the Church of Greece gathering to hold the canonical acts of the two as utterly void-and in exile the two organized their Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America, amongst the other Greek splinter groups in the States. Not in ignorance of the exclusive Orthodox canonical jurisdiction of Met. Platon, but in opposition to it.

So what? You jump over the part where, if you claims are true prior to the 1920's, ROCOR gets the whole shebang in the late 20's, 30's, and beyond.

Now I, on the other hand, am more of a friend to the OCA than you. I claim that it was a canonical mess, that the OCA was a faithful jurisdiction despite the canonical mess, and that it did some good, and that is it a legitimate Orthodox jurisdiction in NA today.

Your argument, however, would give ROCOR sole jurisdictional authority in the US. Good luck with that.

ROCOR didn't exist at all prior to the 1920's, and was ordered by Patriarch St. Tikhon and the Holy Synod of Russia to disband after its first meeting in Karlovski, which it did.It did reconstitute itself afterwards, but on its own authority-as the canons show, a big no-no.

None of the canons quoted thus far give ROCOR jurisdiction or canonical authority over North America. In fact, not a one of the Sacred Canons can be cited in support of ROCOR's claims. They're in even a worse shape there than the Phanar, its fellow maker of that canonical mess you refer to, which resulting from ignoring the canons and the OCA's exclusive Orthodox canonical jurisdiction over North America. As St. Nikodemus points out, the canons which form the basis of and uphold the OCA's exclusive canonical jurisdiction over North America were laid down by the Fathers to prevent just that canonical mess you refer to.

Remove not the ancient marker which your Fathers have raised.

Well, at least you got St. Nikodemos' name right this time, unlike in the op: "Apostolic Canon 35 as interpreted by St. Nektarios in the Pedalion." You corrected and now have right two items, the second being that ROCOR has no claim over the continent (even though you have argued for it all the way through). You state that ROCOR did not exist prior to the 1920's. ROCOR would dispute you on this, as it claims to be the real continuation of the Russian mission/diocese of that time, and then would cite your own posts against you. You are right that it has not claim over the continent. You are just wrong in unwittingly arguing its point that it does have such a claim (even if you try to divert the claims to the OCA).

an archon only has much power as you let him. Christ gives a bishop His power.

An EP ultimately recognized Greece's and Albania's unilateral autocephaly - don't you believe that a future EP would regularize the OCA's autocepahly. After all, there have been 3 EPs since the OCA was granted autocephaly

Optimistic Stance:

and with a chance that a convert (I'm thinking Met. Athenagoras of Belgium) being elected as EP - could he recognize the OCA's autocephaly and nip the whole thing in the bud?

Pessimistic Stance:

and with a chance that a hardliner (I'm thinking Met. Elphidophoros of Proussa) being elected as EP - could he excommunicate the OCA and sever Orthodox Christianity?

Unfortunately the present occupant is grooming your second scenario.

It will be interesting-and telling-what happens with the Phanar threatening now to revoke the autocephaly of the Czech Lands and Slovakia.

I don't see such a thing happening. I can't explain why; I can't imagine an autocephaly being revoked over trivial things.

I don't see it happening either, which makes it all the more foolish that the threat was issued.

New episcopal blood will hopefully keep them going. Met. Joseph taking over for Met. Philip of blessed memory - something positive can come out of that. I remain optimistic.

I don't think Metropolitan Philip of blessed memory was one of the strategic funerals often talked about as needed. I do wish Abp. Demetrios many, many years! His departure can be fatal.

Archbishop Demetrios is north of 85 and continues to maintain a hectic schedule with frequent trips to Istanbul. Hopefully the new blood that will replace Archbishop Demetrios keeps the Episcopal Assemblies on track.

an archon only has much power as you let him. Christ gives a bishop His power.

An EP ultimately recognized Greece's and Albania's unilateral autocephaly - don't you believe that a future EP would regularize the OCA's autocepahly. After all, there have been 3 EPs since the OCA was granted autocephaly

Optimistic Stance:

and with a chance that a convert (I'm thinking Met. Athenagoras of Belgium) being elected as EP - could he recognize the OCA's autocephaly and nip the whole thing in the bud?

Pessimistic Stance:

and with a chance that a hardliner (I'm thinking Met. Elphidophoros of Proussa) being elected as EP - could he excommunicate the OCA and sever Orthodox Christianity?

Unfortunately the present occupant is grooming your second scenario.

It will be interesting-and telling-what happens with the Phanar threatening now to revoke the autocephaly of the Czech Lands and Slovakia.

I don't see such a thing happening. I can't explain why; I can't imagine an autocephaly being revoked over trivial things.

I don't see it happening either, which makes it all the more foolish that the threat was issued.

New episcopal blood will hopefully keep them going. Met. Joseph taking over for Met. Philip of blessed memory - something positive can come out of that. I remain optimistic.

I don't think Metropolitan Philip of blessed memory was one of the strategic funerals often talked about as needed. I do wish Abp. Demetrios many, many years! His departure can be fatal.

Archbishop Demetrios is north of 85 and continues to maintain a hectic schedule with frequent trips to Istanbul. Hopefully the new blood that will replace Archbishop Demetrios keeps the Episcopal Assemblies on track.

Isa doesn't want the Episcopal Assemblies on track, unlike you and I. He has made it quite clear on several websites including this one that he wants it to implode.